For cannabis operators, the cost of goods sold (COGS) is far more than an accounting line item.  It’s the most critical financial number in the entire business.

Under IRC Section 280E, most ordinary business deductions are disallowed, making COGS the primary mechanism for reducing taxable income.  At the same time, COGS drives pricing decisions, product profitability analysis, capital investment planning, and ultimately enterprise value.

Yet in practice, many cannabis operators run COGS systems that would struggle to withstand audit scrutiny—and even more concerning, fail to reflect the true economic cost of producing their products.

The result is dual exposure: elevated tax risk on one side, and distorted business decision-making on the other.

COGS Defensibility Is Not an “Aggressive Tax Strategy”

A common misconception about cannabis is that maximizing COGS is primarily a tax exercise.  Operators often focus on what they believe can be included rather than what can be consistently substantiated, documented, and operationally supported.

True COGS defensibility rests on four pillars:

1. Substantiation – Can each cost be supported by payroll records, invoices, time tracking, inventory movements, and production documentation?
2. Consistency – Are allocation methodologies applied the same way, period after period?
3. Traceability – Can costs be directly tied to physical production activities and inventory flows?
4. Operational alignment – Do accounting numbers reflect how the facility actually operates?

When any of these pillars are weak, audit exposure increases — and financial insight deteriorates.

Importantly, defensible COGS isn’t only about minimizing tax liability.  Accurate costing enables operators to understand true unit economics, identify profitable SKUs, set pricing intelligently, evaluate yield performance, and allocate capital effectively.  Tax optimization becomes a byproduct of operational discipline rather than a risky accounting maneuver.

Why IRS Scrutiny Is Increasing — Not Decreasing

Some operators assume that potential federal rescheduling will materially reduce audit pressure or eliminate the importance of rigorous COGS practices.  That assumption is premature.

Even if cannabis ultimately moves to Schedule III, timing remains uncertain, implementation will take time, and open tax years will remain subject to existing 280E rules.  Historical returns remain examinable, and enforcement activity does not unwind retroactively.

At the same time:

• The IRS has developed greater institutional knowledge of cannabis operations.
• Digital payroll systems, banking records, and seed-to-sale data have improved audit visibility.
• Prior enforcement cycles have highlighted recurring weaknesses in labor classification and inventory controls.

Audit standards are tightening, not loosening.

Where Most Cannabis COGS Break Down

Across cultivation, manufacturing, extraction, and retail operations, several failure patterns consistently appear.

Labor Misclassification

Production labor is often blended with administrative, compliance, or sales functions.  Without time studies, job costing, or consistent labor tracking, allocations become subjective and difficult to defend.

Unsupported Overhead Allocations

Facilities frequently allocate rent, utilities, depreciation, and indirect labor using informal spreadsheets or percentage assumptions that are not grounded in measurable production drivers.

Inventory Accuracy Gaps

Cycle counts are inconsistent.  Work-in-process tracking is incomplete.  Adjustments lack documentation.  Reconciliation between physical inventory, accounting systems, and seed-to-sale platforms is often weak.

Manual Processes and Spreadsheets

Critical cost calculations are often stored in individual spreadsheets with limited version control, audit trails, or governance.

Weak Documentation Culture

Standard operating procedures, allocation methodologies, and change management processes are rarely formalized.

Individually, these issues may seem manageable.  Collectively, they undermine both audit defensibility and business intelligence.

Seed-to-Sale Systems Are Not Cost Accounting Systems

State-mandated seed-to-sale platforms were designed primarily for regulatory traceability, not financial accuracy.  They track weights, transfers, and compliance events, but they don’t calculate labor absorption, overhead allocation, yield efficiency, or true unit economics.

Operators often assume that because inventory exists in the seed-to-sale process, COGS must therefore be accurate.  That assumption is incorrect.

Seed-to-sale data must be reconciled and integrated into accounting systems using disciplined costing logic before it becomes financially reliable.

Why COGS Accuracy Improves Business Performance

Defensible COGS delivers far more than tax protection.

When costs are properly captured and allocated, operators gain:

• Accurate SKU profitability – Identifying which products truly drive margin versus consume resources.
• Pricing discipline – Setting prices based on real cost structures rather than market guesswork.
• Yield optimization insight – Revealing where losses, rework, or inefficiencies erode margin.
• Capital allocation clarity – Understanding which processes justify automation or expansion.
• Financial credibility – Strengthening lender confidence, investor trust, and exit readiness.

In short, accurate costing becomes a management tool, not just a compliance requirement.

What Defensible COGS Looks Like in Practice

High-performing operators increasingly implement:

• Time tracking and labor studies to support production labor classification.
• Bills of material and routings to establish standard production models.
• Documented allocation methodologies tied to measurable operational drivers.
• Routine cycle counts and reconciliations across physical inventory, accounting records, and seed-to-sale systems.
• Formal SOPs and change controls governing costing logic.
• Automated accounting workflows to reduce spreadsheet dependency and strengthen audit trails.

These controls improve both audit readiness and operational clarity.

Practical Steps Operators Can Take Now

Operators don’t need enterprise-scale systems to materially improve COGS integrity.  Several foundational actions create immediate value:

1. Document current labor classifications and identify inconsistencies.
2. Validate overhead allocation logic against real production drivers.
3. Implement regular inventory cycle counts with reconciliation discipline.
4. Standardize cost calculation templates with version control.
5. Formalize costing policies and assumptions in writing.
6. Reconcile seed-to-sale quantities to accounting balances monthly.
7. Treat COGS as a management system, not merely a tax calculation.

The Bottom Line

Most cannabis operators do not fail COGS audits because of aggressive intent.  They fail because their systems, documentation, and operational alignment are not mature enough to support the numbers they report.

Building defensible COGS strengthens tax compliance, improves decision quality, enhances financial credibility, and positions the business for sustainable profitability and long-term value.

In an industry facing margin compression, capital pressure, and increasing regulatory scrutiny, accurate cost intelligence is no longer optional.  It’s strategic infrastructure.

The post Why Most Cannabis COGS Would Fail an Audit — and How Operators Can Fix It appeared first on Cannabis Industry Journal.